Even the 3.5 ranger is a wimp

[Khayman]

I'm playing a ranger in a pirate campaign, and the character has his scary moments. Not only can he sneak around to gain tactical advantage, his principal favoured enemies are humans. Add in the effects of Improved Favoured Enemy feat and he tends to waltz through a lot of ship captains.

Of course, that prompted our DM to trot out orcish pirates, but that's another story...

In my opinion, the ranger wins out for skill points and better saves, plus various other class abilities. He is not a front-line warrior, unless he has weapons that reward multiple strikes (e.g., wounding, frost/flame/etc.). If you want a fighter, play a fighter.

 

[Liquidsabre]

I really don't think they compare to the paladin or the barbarian.

And therein lies your problem. Nope, it isn't common for rangers to have problems staying alive. Best to just re-evaluate what it is you're trying to do with the ranger, as the flavor text says: "...skill-using hunter..."

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The problem lies in the fact that WOTC changed the ranger from a warrior to a rogue. I absolutely detest what they have done with the ranger, and have yet to see anyone play one, other than a level or two dip. As has been stated above, the ranger is no longer a front line fighter, and to play him so is asking to be killed. I use an adaptation of the 1e ranger, and while not as powerful as a fighter or barbarian, he manages to hold his own quite well.

 

[Zephyrus]

The rangers used hit and run tactics and seam to get cleanup bad news on the AOA. Eventually most the rangers get stuck in front line roles because the parties tend to have one barbarian and too many spellcasters.

If I do bump up the ranger hit dice I'll probably change the fighter to get a free feat at every level after 10th.

This realy issent solving anything and in my opinion is like using non-sterial bandaids on wounds that have to do with how the char's are being used.

If your playing a Ranger with hit and run styles.. Dodge Mobility Spring attack and you dont have AOA issues.

Even if you did whats the Dex on the Ranger? Two Weapon fighting Rangers ideally should have a good dex score even at the expense of having a 'average' STR. take weapon finesse to make up for the loss attack bonus due to poor strenght. Rangers will want to fight with at least 1 light weapon, if not both weapons being light in order to get the best attack bonus out of two weapons so weapon finesse realy shines. A couple of Shortswords would be nice. Better yet if your an Elf a pair of Lightblades (D6 18-20/x2 Light exotic weapon, see if DM will allow you to exchange the elven profiency with Longswords or Rapiers for Thinblades or Lightblades, that or if your using Weapon Groups from Unearthed Arcana <one of my favorite varient rules>).

If what you realy want is a two-weapon specialist play a fighter with two weapon fighting. You can fight while wearing heavy armor, you get a load more feats and can get weapon specialization and all around are a better tank if thats what your after.. Example: An Elven Fighter with Weapon Finese, wearing breastplate (eventually mithril) armor weilding thinblades with weapon focus, specialization (eventually greater versions) and improved critical with or keen thinblades. Two weapon defense is a great on top of all that, makes up for not having a shield.

No, the thing that makes a ranger spiffy is its Favored Enemy, minor magic and its special abilities. Rangers get Endurance for free, Die Hard is just a feat away after that. That and Rangers make the best trackers, expecially verse their favored enemies. So its a matter of what your realy after. Rangers are GOOD fighters... but their only GREAT when against their favored enemy. Barbarians are great fighters while raging. Fighters are great when you take the right combo of feats. I've devised a way for a Rogue to be a Great Fighter but only against things not immune to sneek attack (Combat Expertice, Improved Feint and Weapon Finesse to take advantage of a rogues typically better dexterity).

 

[BryonD]

It's only a common problem with players who think their ranger is as much a front-line warrior as a barbarian, fighter or paladin.

That is the answer.

In my experience it is amazing how often players want a ranger to be a full fighter who ALSO gets wilderness abilities.

 

[zepherus]

Ranger Misconceptions ( no relation to previous poster )

I thought I'd throw this out, just to put in my two cents worth ( with todays economy, it'll be short...two cents doesn't get much of an opinion ).

I think the biggest problem that people have a hard time understanding was created by LoTR...Strider...that's a Ranger! Look at him jump into the fray, slash, hack, kill, kill, KILL!!! I've even heard it said specifically that Strider was a Ranger.

That makes for a great movie, but that's not a Ranger. As was mentioned earlier by Liquidsabre - think "skill-using hunter".

When's the last time you heard of any hunter running through the forest, yelling and screaming, while trying to bag his deer/squirrel/rabbit/pheasant?

You've gotta' think stealth, and attack when the opportunity is best...when your target doesn't even know you're there! And when they look for where you are, don't be there anymore!

In a nutshell, the Ranger is just the Rogue of the forest, intead of the thief in the city.

Sorry, that's more like a nickel's worth.

 

[Sejs]

Rangers. Use and love your bow. Use the advantages of the class - woodland stride. hunter's mercy. camoflage. loads of skill points. amazing outdoor mobility.

If you're playing a ranger as a front-line fighter, you're doing it wrong. A ranger isn't about straight up fights - a ranger is about guerilla tactics, hit-and-run, and crippling the enemy without leaving him a way to respond.

If you insist on doing a 2wf ranger, get improved shield bash and pick up a large shield. Hey look, +2 Ac (plus it can be further enhanced) -and- it's a weapon.

 

[DragonLancer]

I usually end up with at least one ranger in my play group, and so far the class has been balanced with the others and their characters survived way past 8th.

Like any class it has a role to play in a group, and if you try and play as it as something its not, thats when it appears to be weak.

 

[Mouseferatu]

The problem lies in the fact that WOTC changed the ranger from a warrior to a rogue. I absolutely detest what they have done with the ranger, and have yet to see anyone play one, other than a level or two dip.

Interesting. I've found the opposite to be true. I think someone's played a ranger in well over half of all 3.5 games I've ever seen, and they've been extremely effective. The only time that wasn't the case was the one campaign where he was the only combat type, and so behaved like a front-line fighter. When used as a scout/hunter/skirmish fighter/ambushers/archer/tracker, they're absolutely spot-on.

Now, that being said...

If the original poster is looking for a more combat-heavy ranger, there's no reason to just go bumping his hit dice and then trying to change other classes to make up for it. Just go back to the 3.0 version of the ranger, which was less skilled but more of a fighter. It's simple, and it's already more or less balanced with the other classes as-is.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Stop playing your rangers like fighters!!!!

Put some points into the sneaky skills people!